Sen Intel Committee Releases Another Report to Show Bush LIED About Saddam

By 18 Comments 589 views

Yes, that’s right boys and girls. The report that many politco-geeks have been waiting YEARS to read, has finally been released; the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Investigative Report on Pre-War Intelligence About Saddam’s Iraq. We’ve waited FIVE YEARS for clear evidence that Bush lied, and what do we get….(insert Price Is Right style drum roll here):

  • A report that is purely political and partisan
  • and a report that has nothing to do with Iraq, but looks at Bush Administration officials who had “talks” w Iran before the war, but failed to go through CIA and State Dept channels.

Several things strike me about this investigation, and there will be further pieces describing its findings, but one, single, fact rises above everything else….NO ONE CARES. That’s right, no one cares. There have been so many investigations into WMD and regime ties to Al Queda that now, five years after the invasion…no one cares. When this report came out yesterday, it was mentioned, but it wasn’t the core of any newscast anywhere. No one cared.

Why doesn’t anyone care? I suppose there’s three reasons

Most people have decided that either the pre-war intelligence regardin Saddam’s regime was as weak and badly handled as the pre-911 attack intelligence was, OR they’ve decided that President Bush somehow knew what Saddam himself didn’t know, and still President Bush decided to invaded Iraq despite being omnipotent.

For many people, it’s a horse that’s been beaten enough. The issue is dead already. Why beat it more?

Lastly, it simply doesn’t matter as much today how the US came to invade Iraq. What matters is how the US leaves.

In the end, reading both of the reports released yesterday, I couldn’t find anything that says the President lied. There’s all kinds of indications that statements from Administration officials and the President were as wrong as those made by Democrats in Congress (people like Sen Kerry, Sen Clinton, and even the head of the Sen Intel Committee, Sen Rockefeller). No, this report-like all the other investigations-fails to convict President Bush or his administration of deliberate lying about intelligence. It does, however, convict everyone who claimed Saddam was a threat of making claims which (while often proven true by post-war intelligence) were not supported by pre-war intelligence.

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
– Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
– Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

In October 2001, we picked up warnings that terrorists had acquired a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb. If detonated in New York City, hundreds of thousands of Americans would have died, and most of Manhattan would have been destroyed. Sam Nunn had an important warning, “This intelligence report was judged to be false. But it was never judged to be implausible or impossible.”
-Sen. John Kerry 1/23/03

[note: none of the above pre-war intelligence claims about Saddam’s regime were examined in the Senate Intelligence Committee’s reports. They were removed from the final “comments” report after Democrats took control of the Senate and the committee two years ago]

LINK to rpt 1
LINK to rpt 2

More here.

18 Responses to “Sen Intel Committee Releases Another Report to Show Bush LIED About Saddam”

  1. 2



    Fact remains it’s a hack job, and the quotes from Democrats and leaders of Congress were removed once Dems took over the committee.

    This investigation has been nothing but a political tool for Democrats seeking to politicize the pre-war intelligence on the war, and it always has been. Sen Rockefeller and Levin lead the way. See also the Rockefeller Memo. I hate to cite FOX News, but since they’re the ones that broke it, and since the AP co-wrote the piece, I will….,2933,102206,00.html

  2. 3

    Fit fit

    It is a dead horse, maybe they think its a piñata .

    Your points are on the statements from Democrats are valid. This is why I hate partisan politics so much. The phase one report was a Republican cover up and the phase two report a Democratic hit job. Can’t we just get the unfiltered truth about anything?

  3. 4



    I love how it comes out the day AFTER Hillary drops out. She had the best intel of anyone. Access to President Clinton, Tenet, Clarke, Ablright, Powell, anyone. All of her “experience” in the 8yrs of the Clinton Admin gave her unique access to the best assessments. Yet, with all that, she

    promoted the invasion
    authorized the invasion
    supported the invasion
    funded the invasion
    funded the occupation

    and so forth.

    Dems DEMANDED this report in Oct 06 (remember Harry Reid ordered the Senate doors closed so he could demand it?) They claimed the Republicans were holding up the report on orders from the White House, then, the Dems took the committee, removed their own quotes, rewrote the report, and released it at a time when it would hurt them least because the news coverage was elsewhere.

    Much has been made of the Bush Lied claim. Yet not one iota of accountability for Congress’ failure on the pre-war intel. As if GWB-a President who can barely read a teleprompter, who can’t eat a pretzel and watch football, and who can’t ride a mtn bike is an omnipotent and clarivoyant (sp) man. Yeah, right.

  4. 5


    The democrats have spent years fostering the Me, me, me, attitudes that resulted in a hundred + Americans standing on the sidewalk watching a man die (he didn’t) in Hartford. The democrat party showed their cowardance in Vietnam and now try to cover it up by turning all Americans into cowards. Never help anyone, be it a dying individual, or a dying nation should be the democrats new elect Hussein motto. The democrats can’t stand the fact that the men and women serving in the military are winners, in spite of the democrat partys assistance to the enemy. That is all this report is, cover for the acts of traitors in congress.

  5. 6



    It is a dead horse,

    Unfortunately, it perpetuates a perception that carries weight in the November election, along with the idea that “the Surge is a failure”, “Iraq is a disaster”, “illegal invasion”, “we are less safe”.

  6. 7



    Don’t hold back scrapiron. Tell us how you really feel.

    Me, I just want equal accountability. We’re told in this report and in infinite rantings from the left that the Bush Administration lied or hyped or misled people about the threat Saddam posed. I want equal accountability from the Democrats who did the same thing, AND from Democrats (often the same people) who deliberately misled a nation and the world into believing that the invasion wasn’t necessary, that it was a fool’s errand, and that the efforts of millions of Americans who have fought there and/or supported the operations there have been useless-even illegal.

  7. 8

    William Teach

    It’s funny how all these Defeatocrats ignore all the evidence and resolutions from the UN, and that all that Saddam had to do was allow the inspections.

    But, then, they and the media cannot even get the imminent threat thing right, since it was first Rockefeller, then Edwards, who said Iraq was an imminent threat.

  8. 9


    The interesting thing is that in their effort to paint Bush as a liar on Iraq the Democrats are establishing what preconditions are necessary in order for military action to be taken. Not that they won’t shy away from their statements in the future, but the Democrats seem to be painting a picture of Iran. A country who did indeed work with AQ pre-9/11, supports international terrorism, and is pursuing WMD. If someone chooses to make a compare and contrast commercial the Dems will have a hard time squaring that circle.

  9. 10


    In a previous article by one of our fine hosts it was noted that the CIA had no reliable intel source in Iraq from 1998 to 2002. If you don’t have your own you have to use other peoples sources, hence the FUBAR.


  10. 11


    Have you noticed the way news is propagated like the quiz show Hollywood squares?

    Of course the news is, with all the developmental skills Mainstream Media could muster to develop the talents of news casters to be promoted to political positions. Many comments are about college professors being liberal but looking closely at the reality of learning, Sheesh, it is likely if a new college student with a fresh mind is entering the system, with huge historical tools like the Internet, resourced beyond anything ever presented in the time of recorded history, young minds appear to be curious asking questions suppressed just a decade ago. But now called radical. All of a sudden we know there is no such thing as the left or right, conservative, or liberal. There happens to be some of everything in those parts in all of us, always having the ability to change. Its just who has the best argument for change will win.

    And with all the resources our narrow media promote and telecast what they the rich elite want you to know rather than what you should know. All in your face political broadcasting crystallized for the advancement of Media dominance. The extraordinary manipulation of the public domain electromagnetic spectrum is wildly out of the publics’ control, or better put was never in the public’s control.

    Do you ever notice just about all resource one see’s is usually an editorial opposite page comment from the daily news papers or the weekly magazines, or now very popular radio talk show personalities serve as political analyst. So, the real news is “what leaks out” is telling how and why our social attitude is filled with morbidity, because that is the way America is learning. Or how about the expression “Breaking News”. Why American’s can’t be given the total surface to the inner seeking abilities of our news collection system, the who, what, where, why, and how we were taught years ago. The real kicker is the constant mantra of the anonymous emails, close sources, or unidentified persons that can and are likely driven by legions of political operatives that have a directive to daily fill memory drives to steer public opinion.

    Scott McClellan is a political fix, or an escape goat for the unholy connection our embedded mainstream media has had that propagates to deny with fire of preposterousness in your face fierce declarations that they in the media are not complicit with the political connections. Yet highly and likely the core players in America’s misguided actions, no not misguided, very thought out, played out and highly corrosive cultural evil, all spewed out while laughing in your face. The haughtiness of Fox connected the Arab investors, or MSNBC parent doing business with Iran, or the mystery of mercenary profiteering gone wild with accountable murdering is past the moral authority of what was established in the Constitution of our country. Pitifully known Bush was likely acting in a war using American resources to benefit the Arab ruling class that has penetrated and corrupted the American system for decades.

    It is all incredible to think American political analysis is drive by this media that is not just in bed with political persons but married to and committed to waging a privatization to ownership using the very Constitutional experiment originated by the forefathers. Claiming along the lines that government should be small, sure actually so small likely only one decider. Go a head and study the some of the economics of our basic Federal Reserve System and you will likely walk away with the knowledge the American electorate and the world has been screwed for decades.

    This all begs the question to the American public for anyone in politics or in the public electromagnetic domain. Why it is one can have their credit and personal economic record known to some corporation or any person who requests this stuff yet when you or me as a citizen would like to know the money transactions of the Bush family or for any other political persons it appears for reasons it’s necessary to Grandstand through a Grand Jury of investigative sensationalism to find out how politicals are connected. Or how they may be scrubbed. As far as any American can see this is why the cynicism runs so deep the time for change is way past due.

  11. 12



    ‘Bush Lied’? If Only It Were That Simple.

    By Fred Hiatt
    Monday, June 9, 2008; A17

    Search the Internet for “Bush Lied” products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic “Bush Lied, People Died” bumper sticker is only the beginning.

    Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

    “In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent,” he said.

    There’s no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

    But dive into Rockefeller’s report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

    On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”

    On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”

    On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”

    On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”

    As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you’ve mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to terrorism.

    But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

    In the report’s final section, the committee takes issue with Bush’s statements about Saddam Hussein’s intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

    After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: “There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.”

    Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee’s vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report’s preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, “the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers’ statements were substantiated by the intelligence.”

    Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in “Bush Lied” mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the “Bush Lied” bumper sticker off his or her car.

    But the phony “Bush lied” story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

    And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.

    For the next president, it may be Iran’s nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more.

  12. 13


    Conclusion 1. Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting.
    A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence.

    Conclusion 2. The Intelligence Community did not accurately or adequately explain to policymakers the uncertainties behind the judgments in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate….

    Conclusion 8. (in part) …Though analysts have been wrong on major issues in the past, no previous intelligence failure has been so costly as the September 11 attacks…Threat analysts are encouraged to “push the envelope” and look at various possible threat scenarios that can be drawn from limited and often fragmentary information. As a result, analysts can no longer dismiss a threat as incredible because they cannot corroborate it.

    Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities.(U) Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President’s visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.

    Conclusion 102. The Committee found that none of the analysts or other people interviewed by the Committee said that they were pressured to change their conclusions related to Iraq’s links to terrorism. After 9/11, however, analysts were under tremendous pressure to make correct assessments, to avoid missing a credible threat, and to avoid an intelligence failure on the scale of 9/11. As a result, the Intelligence Community’s assessments were bold and assertive in pointing out potential terrorist links. For instance, the June 2002 Central Intelligence Agency assessment Iraq and al-Qaida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship was, according to its Scope Note, “purposefully aggressive” in drawing connections between Iraq and al-Qaida in an effort to inform policymakers of the potential that such a relationship existed. All of the participants in the August 2002 coordination meeting on the September 2002 version of Iraqi Support/or Terrorism interviewed by the Committee agreed that while some changes were made to the paper as a result of the participation of two Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy staffers, their presence did not result in changes to their analytical judgments.

    In other words, Bush didn’t “make things up”, he was given bad info from a flawed intellegence community…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *